Global trends in climate change litigation: key themes from 2025 snapshot report

On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the long-running and high-profile litigation concerning Shell’s obligations to reduce its CO2 emissions. Shell’s appeal centred on whether it is legally required to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. The appeal followed a District Court decision in 2021 that ordered Shell to reduce its aggregate annual CO2 emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions) by at least 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.

In a comprehensive judgment, the Hague Court of Appeal quashed the District Court decision and held that there was no legal basis to impose a specific reduction percentage (such as 45%) on Shell for its global operations. However, the Court recognised that Shell has a legal responsibility to limit CO2 emissions – including Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions – in line with the 1.5-C Paris Agreement target.

Key takeaways include:

• Protection from the impacts of climate change is a human right that may be read into rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Dutch law, such as the right to life and the right to respect for private and family life.

• While States have the primary obligation to protect citizens from the adverse effects of climate change, the Court emphasised that companies (particularly major fossil fuel producers like Shell) also bear responsibility to contribute to mitigation efforts (even in the absence of explicit statutory requirements).

• Shell “does not have the absolute reduction obligation of 45% (or any other percentage) under EU law and will not have such an obligation for the foreseeable future”. Beyond complying with mandatory EU laws that require emissions reduction, companies “…are free to choose their own approach to reducing their emissions in the mandatory climate transition plan as long as it is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s climate targets”.

• The responsibility of corporations to contribute to mitigation efforts is also reflected in soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (both of which Shell has endorsed). International initiatives and standards such as the United Nations Global Compact and the ISO Net Zero Guidelines can also be used to highlight corporate responsibility.

While affirming the existence of a corporate duty of care to mitigate climate change, the Hague Court of Appeal declined to translate global or sectoral reduction targets into binding obligations for individual companies in the absence of clear legislative or scientific standards. The judgment highlights the complexity of attributing and enforcing climate obligations against the private sector.

Milieudefensie and the coalition of environmental NGOs have since launched an appeal in the Dutch Supreme Court. The appeal’s primary ground is that the Hague Court of Appeal failed “…to recognise the fact that Articles 2, 8, and 13 ECHR, that are reflected in the duty of care, demand an effective remedy and/or effective protection against dangerous climate change, which in turn requires that a (percentage-based) reduction obligation must be determined”. The appellants also argue that when determining what reduction percentage may be demanded of Shell, the Court applied far too narrow of a criterion and that it demanded “…far more from climate science than the science will ever be able to deliver”.

Milieudefensie’s claims against Shell also expand beyond the Supreme Court appeal.

On 13 May 2025, Milieudefensie issued a formal legal notice to Shell, alleging that its continued investment in new oil and gas fields and its climate policies for 2030–2050 breach Dutch legal duties of care and threaten global climate goals. Milieudefensie’s notice relies on Dutch civil law, human rights law and recent Dutch court rulings (including the Court of Appeal decision analysed above). The notice criticises Shell’s plans to expand its liquefied natural gas (LNG) business and sustain or grow fossil fuel production through 2035. Milieudefensie argues that Shell’s forecasts for LNG demand far exceed those in 1.5-C-aligned scenarios and even surpass demand in high-emissions scenarios, directly contradicting Shell’s claims of alignment with the Paris Agreement.

Milieudefensie’s notice states that it intends to seek:

• An immediate end to Shell’s investments in new oil and gas fields, citing the International Energy Agency’s findings that no new fossil fuel supply investments are needed to meet demand in a net-zero pathway and that current investment levels are incompatible with the 1.5C goal.

• An order to compel Shell to set 1.5C aligned emissions reduction targets from 2035 up to 2050 – referencing IPCC and IEA scenarios as benchmarks – arguing that Shell has not committed to reducing its total Scope 3 emissions before 2030 and lacks a credible plan to achieve net-zero by 2050.

Shell responded on 13 June 2025, rejecting Milieudefensie’s claims in its entirety and indicating that it will defend its position in any legal proceedings initiated against it.

This notice marks another escalation in climate litigation against Shell and other major fossil fuel companies and reflects the broader trend of holding corporates accountable for their role in the climate crisis. The outcome, alongside the pending Supreme Court case, should be watched closely for implications on corporate climate responsibility and the future of fossil fuel investment.

On 28 March 2025, Milieudefensie issued a formal summons to ING Group N.V. and ING Bank N.V, alleging that ING’s climate policies and financing activities are in breach of its duty of care to counter dangerous climate change and protect human rights under Dutch law. The summons asserts that ING’s current climate policy is inadequate, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions that undermine the 1.5C target of the Paris Agreement and lead to large-scale human rights violations. Milieudefensie argues that ING’s significant emissions and its role as a major financial institution in a wealthy country confer a heightened responsibility to do more than the global average to reduce emissions.

Milieudefensie’s summons sets out four principal demands for the organisation – ING must:

• halve its total emissions in 2030 and continue reducing its emissions in the years thereafter in line with science

• reduce its emissions in eight polluting sectors that ING finances, such as steel and aviation, in line with the reduction pathways of the NZE scenario of the International Energy Agency

• stop financing companies that are developing new oil and gas projects

• require all large corporate clients to provide credible climate plans.

This claim reflects a growing trend of climate litigation targeting financial institutions for their role in enabling and financing high-emissions activities. It underscores the increasing legal and reputational risks for banks whose climate policies and disclosures are perceived as insufficiently robust or misaligned with international climate goals. The case also highlights the evolving expectations for absolute emissions reductions, comprehensive reporting (including scope 3 and financed emissions) and the use of both engagement and disengagement strategies in client relationships.

Financial institutions should closely monitor developments in this area, review the adequacy of their climate policies and ensure that their governance, disclosures and client engagement strategies are aligned with emerging legal standards and stakeholder expectations.

On 28 May 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm delivered its judgment addressing the legal responsibility of German energy giant, RWE for alleged property damage in Peru as a result of climate change-induced glacial melt and risk of flooding. The judgment came ten years after the initial filing of the case and a multi-day site visit to Peru in May 2022.

While the Court dismissed the case and held that there was “no concrete danger” to Lliuya’s property from flooding based on extensive expert evidence, it accepted that, in principle, even a partial contribution to a harmful outcome could be sufficient for liability under German law (provided the contribution was not insignificant in the context of the overall risk).

Central to the Court’s decision was the assessment of whether Lliuya’s property faced a concrete and imminent risk of flooding within a relevant time frame. The Court relied on extensive expert evidence, which established that:

• The probability of a flood event from Laguna Palcacocha affecting Lliuya’s property within the next 30 years was significantly less than 3% and closer to 1%.

• Even in extreme scenarios, the anticipated impact on Lliuya’s property would be limited and not threaten the structural integrity of the building.

• The risk of catastrophic events (for example large-scale rock or ice avalanches triggering a glacial lake outburst flood) was extremely low and there was no evidence of imminent instability in the surrounding slopes or permafrost.

The Court concluded that such a low probability did not meet the legal threshold for a “concrete and imminent” impairment required for a preventive claim under the German Civil Code.The Court emphasised that legal attribution requires a concrete and imminent risk of impairment, not merely an abstract or potential danger.

Even though Lliuya’s claims were dismissed, this judgment provides guidance on the limits of civil liability for climate change-related harms under specific provisions of German law. We know now that German civil law could potentially be used to hold major emitters liable for the effects of climate change, including transnational claims provided there is a concrete and imminent risk of impairment.

On 16 July 2025, the Federal Court of Australia delivered its judgment which dismissed a landmark negligence claim brought by two Torres Strait Islanders on behalf of their communities. The applicants alleged that the Commonwealth owed them a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect them, their traditional way of life, and the Torres Strait and its marine environment from the current and projected impacts of climate change, particularly by setting adequate greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and implementing adaptation measures such as seawalls.

The Court accepted compelling evidence that climate change has already caused profound environmental and cultural loss in the Torres Strait, including inundation, erosion, coral bleaching, and the disruption of traditional practices forming part of Ailan Kastom. The Court further acknowledged that the Torres Strait Islands and their inhabitants are “undoubtedly far more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than other communities in Australia”. The Court also found that the Commonwealth’s past emissions targets (set in 2015, 2020 and 2021) failed to reflect the best available science or align with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Despite these findings, the Court ultimately held that the claim failed as a matter of law. It found that the setting of emissions targets, and decisions of adaptation funding are matters of core government policy and therefore not appropriate to be subject to a duty of care. Further, even if a duty of care was established, the applicants had not proven causation: although Australia’s unambitious targets contributed to global warming, the Court found that contribution too minor and diffuse to satisfy the legal standard of causation.

The Court also held that the common law of negligence does not currently recognise the loss of cultural fulfillment as a compensable form of harm. Damage to cultural identity, beliefs, and traditions, whether suffered individually or collectively, does not yet constitute actionable damage under existing tort principles.

The applicants’ case drew similarities from the successful case of The State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation. In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ultimately held that, by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020, the Dutch government had acted unlawfully in contravention of its duty of care under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect the rights to life and respect for private and family life. This landmark case in the Netherlands has inspired similar climate litigation globally. However, in the absence of a comparative human rights act in Australia, both this judgment and the Federal Court’s similar findings in the previous duty of care case Minister for the Environment v Sharma [2022] FCAFC 35 demonstrate the difficulty in the courts establishing a duty of care in the context of climate change in Australia.

The decision therefore underscores both the power and present limits of climate claims: the factual record and moral narrative were compelling, yet the law in Australia remains cautious about imposing justiciable duties on governments in complex policy domains. The law is also cautious in finding that legal causation is established where the alleged harm results from the cumulative effect of global greenhouse gas emissions and Australia’s individual contribution. Nevertheless, the Court’s extensive findings on the cultural, environmental and other impacts of climate change, and its finding that Australia’s previous emissions reduction targets were “unquestionably” unambitious, provide a potential foundation for future cases.

On 29 March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a Resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the obligations of States with respect of climate change. This initiative, led by the Republic of Vanuatu, reflects mounting frustration with the slow pace of international climate negotiations and the urgent need for legal clarity and accountability.

The resolution seeks clarification on the scope and nature of a states’ duties to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the legal consequences for states whose actions or omissions cause significant harm to the climate, with particular focus on the rights and interests of vulnerable populations, including Small Island Developing States and future generations.

The UNGA has asked the ICJ to consider a number of key international instruments, including the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as well as the duty of due diligence, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment.

The Resolution also expresses concern over the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions and the failure to meet existing financial commitments by developed countries.

The ICJ received a record of 91 written statements from States and 62 written comments on those statements, with 96 States and 11 international organisations presenting oral statements at public hearings in December 2024. See our March 2025 Sustainability Insights publication for our consideration of the key themes raised in the submissions.

The ICJ advisory opinion will be handed down on 23 July 2025.

On 18 December 2024, the Supreme Court of Montana handed down its opinion and judgment in Held v State of Montana, affirming a trial court’s 2023 decision. The Court affirmed that the Montana Constitution protects the right to a stable climate system and that a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act restricting consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding climate change impacts in environmental reviews violated that right.

This legal victory has led to legislative action in Montana, with several new laws seeking to water down the effects of that ruling. Notably, while the new laws require the State to keen an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, it does not impose any obligation to regulate them.

On 3 July 2025, the IACtHR issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion – recognising for the first time that the right to a safe and stable climate system falls within the scope of human rights protections under the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).

Originating from a request by the governments of Chile and Colombia, the IACtHR was asked to clarify the obligations of states, in their individual and collective dimension, to respond to the climate emergency within the framework of the ACHR. The ACHR protects of a number of human rights, including the right to life, rights to information and transparency and meaningful public participation in climate change decision-making and policies.

The advisory opinion confirms the obligations of members of the Organisation of American States under the ACHR to prevent and remedy climate-related harms, protect vulnerable groups and future generations and ensure procedural rights, including public participation, access to information and access to justice. More specifically, this extends to:

• Setting mitigation targets in line with the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement and setting nationally determined contributions that reflect the highest possible ambition.

• Taking measures to respond to climate change with regard to vulnerable groups, such as children, Indigenous peoples, tribes and people living in poorer regions. These measures should consider the specific context and vulnerabilities of regions and populations.

• Adopting measures to ensure the protection, restoration and regeneration of ecosystems.

• Taking measures to adapt to climate change, including adopting, regularly updating and implementing national adaptation plans, consistent with the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC.

• Regulating companies to prevent climate-related human rights violations, for example, by requiring the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions within their value chain, requiring emissions reductions and setting standards to discourage greenwashing and undue influence.

• Ensuring intra and intergenerational equity.

• Protecting the rights of environmental rights defenders.

The IACtHR advisory opinion provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation and application of States’ international legal obligations concerning human rights and climate change under the ACHR.

In May 2025, a coalition of African civil society organizations submitted a request for an advisory opinion to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), seeking clarification on the human rights obligations of African states in the context of the climate crisis.

The request, led by the Pan African Lawyers Union, supported by the African Climate Platform and other organisations, seeks authoritative clarification on the scope and content of States’ human rights duties in the context of climate change, with a particular focus on the rights of vulnerable populations and the regulation of third-party actors in Africa.

The request underscores that Africa, despite contributing minimally to global greenhouse gas emissions, is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts and that climate change disproportionately affects women and girls, children, elderly, indigenous peoples and environmental human rights defenders - exacerbating existing inequalities.

This request is the first climate-related petition to the ACtHPR and represents a significant development in African and international climate jurisprudence. A decision by the ACtHPR could:

• Clarify and potentially expand the scope of African States’ human rights obligations in the context of climate change, with direct implications for national policy, legislation and litigation

• Provide authoritative guidance on the regulation of third-party conduct in Africa, particularly that of multinational corporations.

• Strengthen the legal basis for claims by vulnerable populations and communities affected by climate change, including claims for compensation, adaptation and participation in climate related decision-making.

• Inform the development of regional and international standards on climate justice, sustainable development and intergenerational equity.

In Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Kobe Steel Ltd., et al, the Osaka High Court dismissed an appeal seeking to prevent the operation of two coal-fired units in the city of Kobe, Japan.

The case was initiated in 2018 by thirty-one families who argued that the operation of the plants would violate their right to clean air and a healthy and clean environment, the right to enjoy a stable climate, whilst also conflicting with Japan's 2030 and 2050 climate targets and worsening already substandard air quality in residential areas.

However, both the Kobe District Court (in 2023) and subsequently the Osaka High Court (in 2024) rejected the plaintiffs’ claims. Central to the courts’ reasoning was the concept of “concrete danger”. The courts found that while climate change poses serious global risks, its effects on the individual plaintiffs were too indirect and abstract to support an injunction against specific actors. The High Court held that any climate-related harms were too abstract and indirect to warrant judicial protection.

This decision mirrors the outcome in a related administrative case from 2023, Citizens’ Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant v. Japan, in which the Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions rejecting a challenge to the environmental approval process for the same plants. In that case, the courts similarly declined to recognise greenhouse gas emissions as infringing a legally protected individual interest under administrative law, instead characterising climate concerns as policy matters rather than adjudication. Notably, the High Court acknowledged that this interpretation could evolve with changing societal norms, but did not find that such a change had yet occurred.

In May 2025, a settlement was reached between EnergyAustralia and Parents for Climate shortly before the Federal Court hearing. Parents for Climate alleged that EnergyAustralia engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct (‘greenwashing’) in promoting its Go Neutral products. Proceedings were discontinued on the due to the products being withdrawn and on the condition that an approved statement be published by EnergyAustralia.

See our client alert for details on Parents for Climate’s claims and the statements published by Energy Australia.

In December 2024, the Federal Court of Australia concluded a significant three-week hearing in the first Australian case to challenge a company’s net zero emissions claims under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The proceedings have been brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) and allege that Santos engaged in greenwashing, by embellishing its environmental credentials in a way that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. These allegations are in relation to Santos’ ‘clean energy’ claims and its net zero plan in its 2020 annual report, during a Santos investor day briefing and in its 2021 Climate Change Report. Specifically, the ACCR alleges that:

• Santos' claims that natural gas is a “clean fuel” that provides "clean energy" are false and misleading with respect to the true effect of natural gas on the climate, including the large releases of CO2 and methane during extraction and burning.

• Santos’ claims that it has a clear and credible plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2040 are misleading, when in fact Santos plans to expand its natural gas operations, which depends on undisclosed assumptions about the effectiveness of carbon capture and storage processes.

Santos rejects the allegations, submitting in response that:

• Santos' 2020 Annual Report discloses material carbon emissions for its gas production operations and a transition roadmap and long- term strategy for a 2040 net zero target, which would have been understood to be, a target, plan or "roadmap" based on reasonable forecasts, predictions and judgments about the kinds of future opportunities likely to enable Santos to achieve net zero emissions by 2040.

• The particular statements in the 2020 Annual Report should be read in their context, which includes the paragraphs in which those statements appear, the 2020 Annual Report as a whole and the contemporaneous publication of the 2021 Climate Change Report which deals with issues about emissions in more detail.

• “Clean" is an adjective, the meaning of which is inherently relative, especially when used to describe fuels and energy. The relevant audience for the 2020 Annual Report would have understood "clean fuel" and "clean energy" to be relative rather than absolute descriptions.

The ACCR’s overall submission during the hearing was that Santos lacked reasonable grounds for announcing its net zero targets, such that Santos had no tangible pathway for achieving net zero and that its plan was little more than ‘speculation cobbled together in weeks … attended by no proper process or modelling’. Throughout the hearing, Santos maintained that it rejects the allegations, submitting that it has disclosed sufficient information about its material carbon emissions and a transition roadmap and that the material should be understood in the context of the industry and the relevant audience of the Santos Annual Report.

Santos submitted that Australia’s commitment to the Paris Agreement includes the use of offsets and that the use of descriptive words such as ‘clean’ was in a relative sense and appropriate for the industry at the time. With the hearing concluding on 6 December 2024, judgement is likely to be delivered soon.

The Court’s findings in these proceedings will have significant implications for the way businesses make net zero emissions target claims and other sustainability statements and clarifying what types of statements may breach the ACL. We also expect the judgement to shed light on what constitutes sufficient evidence for a ‘reasonable basis’ for making representations about future matters and what might be the appropriate definition of net zero.

On 18 April 2024, the ACCC commenced its first greenwashing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against Clorox Australia Pty Ltd (Clorox) for allegedly making false or misleading representations that its GLAD branded kitchen tidy and garbage bags are made of ‘50% ocean plastic recycled’ in violation of the ACL. See our insight for further details on the ACCC’s claims.

On 7 February 2025, the matter was heard in the Federal Court. At the hearing, Clorox admitted the contraventions and the parties agreed to a proposed penalty of $8.25 million for contraventions of the ACL.

In addition to the proposed penalty, the parties also sought injunctive relief, orders for a compliance program to be implemented by Clorox and orders that Clorox publish a correction notice.

This case demonstrates that businesses making environmental claims must ensure any qualifications are clear and prominent. Clorox’s clarification that its bags used ‘ocean bound’ rather than ‘ocean-found’ plastic was not sufficiently visible and the overall packaging—through imagery and colour—contributed to a misleading impression. Companies must also consider how ordinary consumers will interpret their claims, ensuring they are not only technically correct but also not misleading.

Justice Neskovcin also stressed the importance of deterring misleading claims, as they can undermine consumer trust and distort fair competition.

On 18 March 2025, the Federal Court ordered Active Super to pay a pecuniary penalty of $10.5 million for making false or misleading representations about its ESG credentials. See our client alert for details on the parties’ submissions and further details on the Court’s findings.